| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| Victim of Preservation? https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=40043 |
Page 1 of 4 |
| Author: | Robby Peartree [ Fri Nov 25, 2016 7:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Victim of Preservation? |
https://www.flickr.com/photos/53177163@ ... otostream/ A long time observer of the Rio Grande Narrow Gauge and long time Silverton resident makes an interesting statement about "preservation". Robby Peartree |
|
| Author: | Rick Rowlands [ Fri Nov 25, 2016 7:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Victim of Preservation? |
More evidence that a locomotive in steam is worshipped while a locomotive out of service is usually ignored, exploited, battered and neglected. |
|
| Author: | Steamguy73 [ Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Victim of Preservation? |
You could say the same for 483 on the C&T, and a more notable example of UP 838 |
|
| Author: | Richard Glueck [ Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Victim of Preservation? |
Are there any cases of parts donor locomotives eventually being rebuilt for service after the receiving locomotive has crapped out? |
|
| Author: | Jennie K [ Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Victim of Preservation? |
Richard Glueck wrote: Are there any cases of parts donor locomotives eventually being rebuilt for service after the receiving locomotive has crapped out? Ex D&RGW 464 comes to mind......... |
|
| Author: | M Austin [ Fri Nov 25, 2016 9:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Victim of Preservation? |
What, Robby...... Didn't you check off the "ORGAN DONOR" box on your drivers license? |
|
| Author: | Lincoln Penn [ Fri Nov 25, 2016 10:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Victim of Preservation? |
So, can I assume your correspondent is first in line to finance the restoration of 492? |
|
| Author: | J3a-614 [ Fri Nov 25, 2016 10:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Victim of Preservation? |
Lincoln Penn wrote: So, can I assume your correspondent is first in line to finance the restoration of 492? You kind of beat me to the punch. A more correct comment might be that we are dealing with a shortage of resources, which in turn are from a lack of a traffic level that justifies maintaining this engine in serviceable condition. If it's any consolation, our common carrier roads often have had similar situations. How many dead lines of diesels have we seen over the years, units that stood around for extended times waiting for traffic levels to come back? Indeed, I would say this engine doesn't even look too bad, not compared to a 2-10-2 that is in a photograph in "New Haven Power" (J. W. Swanberg, published by Alvin F. Staufer, 1988). That locomotive was missing multiple driver sets, its tender, its smokebox front, all sorts of other parts, and had a ripped jacket with exposed lagging. It was out of service due to the Depression, and was that way for years. But this incredibly neglected and cannibalized hulk would be overhauled and would run again for the traffic surge that came in WW II. What this road needs is more traffic! https://www.amazon.com/New-Haven-Power- ... 0944513093 |
|
| Author: | Rob Gardner [ Fri Nov 25, 2016 10:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Victim of Preservation? |
ASR's Reading T-1, No. 2100, was originally a parts source for the AFT 2101 in the late 1970's. She then sat forlornly at Hagerstown, MD outside the decaying roundhouse missing many components until the late 80's when it was rebuilt by Richard Kughn, Ross Rowland and Bill Benson. Rob Gardner American Steam Railroad |
|
| Author: | Utah Josh [ Fri Nov 25, 2016 11:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Victim of Preservation? |
, |
|
| Author: | Robby Peartree [ Fri Nov 25, 2016 11:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Victim of Preservation? |
Saying the critic of 492 condition should pay for the restoration shows an arrogance to the situation and self-importance that does not reflect reality. It is easy to criticize someone when you know nothing of their contributions. This is particularly easy behind a false name. I just went thru Fritz photos on a link on the internet. I do not know the author. I do know he is a military veteran and a long time citizen of Colorado including serving time on the D&S citizen advisory board and he owned a restaurant in Silverton and is involved with the Silverton Northern work ongoing in Silverton. So he has invested time and effort into what many of you call preservation. In the case of 492 why would the tax payers of Colorado or New Mexico have to pay for replacement parts on a locomotive they bought whole? When they purchased this locomotive it was a complete locomotive certified in 1966 with then current out of service dates? It is the operators doing repairs that stole the parts from 492, not the citizens of the two states. But this conversation is more than who should pay for it. The back alley of many organization has items waiting to be restored. In the mean time are our “artifacts” a parts source or are there efforts to provided some form of protection. Is there efforts toward restoration or for those items to only take up space before someone takes pity on them? If you look at the photographs and the comments objectively it raises valid issues. If your ego only leads to degrade others who raise valid points we will lose the objectiveness of an outside view. Someone who can see what our visitor may very well be seeing and lets us know what it is an asset not something to belittle. Who do we take these outside views to truly benefit our efforts? Robby Peartree |
|
| Author: | Dougvv [ Sat Nov 26, 2016 12:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Victim of Preservation? |
Hi, Concerning the owning operation (Cumbres and Toltec Scenic) and 492, 494, 495, and 483; Klinke''s (Sorry, I can only recall Colonel from Hogan's Heros) photo is both well taken AND misses the point for the C&TS. The Historical Preservation study published about 1980 for the C&TS said that several extra engines were purchased for parts to keep the operating locos running. The PRR purchased the ex-GN electrics (all eight) and put seven (PRR class FF2) into operation with the eighth one parted out for spares. This is a not uncommon practice. Almost all of the salvageable parts from the C&TS ex-D&RGW K37s have been long since salvaged to keep the line running for tourists. The exception is the 497 which was a special case swap between the Durango & Silverton and the C&TS. 492 and 497 are actually in the best condition to be made operable (As I understand it) if ridership grows to pre-9/11 levels and another loco is required. If an accident occurs and a frame is twisted, maybe the out of service locos can donate a frame or the damaged loco have its parts moved to one of the OOS locos to have one operating again. Yes - it is sad to see 492 in the current condition but in this one case, funds are not available to build a engine storage building or a museum building. In my opinion, the non-operating locos would be best preserved inside and painted to look good even if they are missing parts. Someone in the past year or two mentioned 3D printed parts replacements for static locos. Taking parts from the 492, 494, 495, and 483 was a way to keep the repair costs down early in the C&TS history while it was building itself up to national notice. I do not feel that this was an unworthy goal. If revenue grows to support another loco, fantastic. For what its worth. Doug vV |
|
| Author: | Lincoln Penn [ Sat Nov 26, 2016 1:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Victim of Preservation? |
Robby Peartree wrote: Saying the critic of 492 condition should pay for the restoration shows an arrogance to the situation and self-importance that does not reflect reality. It is easy to criticize someone when you know nothing of their contributions. Robby Peartree That works both ways, Robby. |
|
| Author: | Randy Hees [ Sat Nov 26, 2016 2:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Victim of Preservation? |
There are 8 of the 10 D&RGW K-36 locomotives surviving… (one operational at CRM) This is one of those 8. These locomotives share a number of running gear parts with sister K-36 locomotives (9 of 10 surviving, 8 in service) The K-37 were a bit of a kluge from the beginning, with new frames from Baldwin mated to old turn of the century boilers from standard gauge 2-8-0 locomotive… As such they suffer from some boiler design issues. The K-36 locomotives have become the preferred power on both the D&S and the C&TS… Both for valve gear and rods, but also for air pumps, injectors and such… So yes, the K-37’s have become a parts source. It is also rational to question how many locomotives the C&TS and D&S each need… (we can throw in the CRM as well) each additional locomotive adds a significant inspection burden… So the hanger queens (there are many) are not required for operation, and if maintained for operation would be a drain on the operation. Preservation includes a concept called “Sustainability”… and doing much more with these locomotives could threaten the others… Of course, its not being cut up… just cannibalized, and I have some information that suggests that the missing parts or at least the parts they replaced are stored and could be returned. There are a number or restored/rehabilitated railroad cars/locomotives at many museums that only could be economically restored/rehabilitated via used/salvaged parts. This is a sad reality. In the case of these locomotives, they are not lost, but just a bit further from rehabilitation… At our museum we have a standard gauge UP 2-8-0 that has suffered in preservation, losing parts to support tourist operations elsewhere before we acquired it... it has suffered but is not lost. Randy |
|
| Author: | Dougvv [ Sat Nov 26, 2016 2:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Victim of Preservation? |
Quote: Richard Glueck wrote: Are there any cases of parts donor locomotives eventually being rebuilt for service after the receiving locomotive has crapped out? ex-D&RGW K36 482 is another one. Owned by the C&TS and traded with the D&S for a working K37 497. This was c1992. Doug vV |
|
| Page 1 of 4 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|